IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Ebola Treatment Trials to Assess the Extent to Which They Adhere to Ethical Guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Richardson
  • Andrew McDonald Johnston
  • Heather Draper

Abstract

Background: Objective: To determine to what extent each trial met criteria specified in three research frameworks for ethical trial conduct. Methods and findings: Data sources: MEDBASE and EMBASE databases were searched using a specific search strategy. The Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the PROSPERO database and trial registries were examined. A grey literature search and citation search were also carried out. Conclusions: Some limited and appropriate deviation from standard research expectations in disaster situations is increasingly accepted. However, this is not an excuse for poor ethics oversight and international regulations are in place which should not be ignored. New guidelines are needed that better define the boundaries between using medicines for compassionate use and conducting a clinical trial. Greater support should be offered for local research ethics committees in affected areas so that they can provide robust ethical review. Further systematic reviews should be carried out in epidemics of any novel infectious diseases to assess if comparable findings arise.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Richardson & Andrew McDonald Johnston & Heather Draper, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Ebola Treatment Trials to Assess the Extent to Which They Adhere to Ethical Guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168975
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168975
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168975&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168975?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.